Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

grizgrin wrote:Oh, and John? Don't mind sebster. He just seems to enjoy trolling for Americans. He does it quite a bit. You never see him attacking anyone else, funny that.

When there's conversations about issues in other countries I'll be happy to talk about them. If someone started a thread on the politics and morality of the Chinese Olympics I'd certainly come down as critical on the Chinese government. If someone started a thread on my own country I'd certainly criticise the politically driven immigration policies of the Howard government, or the recent burst of wowserism from the Rudd government. If we were to talk about my home state, I'd be the first to raise the complete lack of talent in any of the major parties, not to mention the bizarre small town mindset... despite having more than a million people in Perth.

And yet, I love my country and am particularly parochial about my home state... despite being able to see and comment on their failings. One of the things I love about America has been it's ability to do the same, personified by the counter-culture movments but having been around for a long time before that. And I say 'one of the things' because I really like American, find it's people friendly and welcoming. It's also an utterly gorgeous, diverse country I really want to travel to in the next few years. In fact, I'm pretty sure I mentioned that last point in the thread on international travel.

Anyway though, thanks for expressing your opinion. Always good to know who'll give you the benefit of the doubt and who'll rush in and call someone an anti-American troll.

sebster wrote: If someone started a thread on the politics and morality of the Chinese Olympics I'd certainly come down as critical on the Chinese government.

Sounds like a job opportunity Sebster. Go for it.

jfrazell wrote:Sounds like a job opportunity Sebster. Go for it.

What does Dakka Dakka pay for starting a thread these days?

Twice as much as I get for being a Mod

Hey seb.

Actually, I'm not trying to name call, so much as I am making an observation. Possibly a fine line, I admit. Every thread I see you in, you are bashing Americans. Admittedly, I don't see you in a lot of threads, so I guess we don't "hang out" in a lot of the same places. But yeah, where I see you, that's what you are doing.

Given that, what the heck else is a guy to think? Oh sure, I could start searching all your threads, and finding out what the real sebster is about, and attempting thereby to gain a deeper picture of you as a person. However, that's just a bit involved. And researching posters is not what I came to Dakka to do. Researching our games, that's a bit closer to the mark.

I'm sure there's a lot more to you as a person. There would have ot be, otherwise you wouldn't be able to type a post at all. However, I call it like I see it, and that is what I have seen of you. If and when I see more and different material from you, my view will change. Until then, that is what my opinion will remain; in this case a summation of what I have seen.

Enjoy your trip.

A bit more on topic, I heard a quote form somewhere that someone else is almost guaranteed to remember better but I guess that I will throw out there anyway. "If you want to get anything done, you have to be a radical." I find some sense to that, given our society here in the states. We are continually swinging back and forth between extremes of any type of issue. Gun control is a good example, in that some people favor more freedoms regarding them, and others favor taking them all away for reasons of safety. That's a lot of what our society is suppossed to be like, go one direction for a while and then when that is no longer useful, go another. Hopefully we end up more "tacking into the wind" and making some kind of progress rather than "going in circles".

This guy saying he's too fat to execute via lethal injection? I'll be interested to see how it plays out. Personally, I think it's a crap arguem ent, b/c if it was doctors would never be able to operate on the really large, or morbidly obese. There is an anesthesiologist somewhere who can be consulted to provide an opinion on how much ketamine this guy should be able to absorb before he is knocked out. There is a nurse somewhere who can find a vein on this guy. Worst comes to worst, dose him by mouth or by patch. There's all kinds of ways to get around his weight issue without needing to resort to C&U.

And as far as the people here who are arguing that firing squad is the way to go, I'd like to hear form some of the folks in here who have actually pointed a firearm at someone and killed them. First times a doozie, I'd bet, and that would be an opinion I would respecton the topic. Everyone else is just kind of flapping their gums.

grizgrin wrote:Hey seb.

Actually, I'm not trying to name call, so much as I am making an observation. Possibly a fine line, I admit. Every thread I see you in, you are bashing Americans. Admittedly, I don't see you in a lot of threads, so I guess we don't "hang out" in a lot of the same places. But yeah, where I see you, that's what you are doing.

Given that, what the heck else is a guy to think? Oh sure, I could start searching all your threads, and finding out what the real sebster is about, and attempting thereby to gain a deeper picture of you as a person. However, that's just a bit involved. And researching posters is not what I came to Dakka to do. Researching our games, that's a bit closer to the mark.

I'm sure there's a lot more to you as a person. There would have ot be, otherwise you wouldn't be able to type a post at all. However, I call it like I see it, and that is what I have seen of you. If and when I see more and different material from you, my view will change. Until then, that is what my opinion will remain; in this case a summation of what I have seen.

Enjoy your trip.

It's perfectly understandable that you don't really know much about me, I don't remember us crossing paths at all, and no-one should be expected to look up another poster's history just to have a conversation. But I've found if I don't much about a person it's better to give them a little benefit of the doubt, or ask them to clarify something before dismissing them. It makes life a little more pleasant, and means that just sometimes you might end up learning something new, instead of reflexively putting everyone's arguments into little boxes for easy dismissal... 'he's just being anti-American so I won't think about that'.

A bit more on topic, I heard a quote form somewhere that someone else is almost guaranteed to remember better but I guess that I will throw out there anyway. "If you want to get anything done, you have to be a radical." I find some sense to that, given our society here in the states. We are continually swinging back and forth between extremes of any type of issue. Gun control is a good example, in that some people favor more freedoms regarding them, and others favor taking them all away for reasons of safety. That's a lot of what our society is suppossed to be like, go one direction for a while and then when that is no longer useful, go another. Hopefully we end up more "tacking into the wind" and making some kind of progress rather than "going in circles".

That isn't just the nature of US politics, or even just the US or politics. It's just kind of how the world works, we take stuff from all over the place, including the extremes, and we try it. If it works we (generally) keep it, and if it doesn't we (generally) try something else. It's a pretty inefficient way to progress, but without perfect knowledge it's pretty much how things have to be.

And as far as the people here who are arguing that firing squad is the way to go, I'd like to hear form some of the folks in here who have actually pointed a firearm at someone and killed them. First times a doozie, I'd bet, and that would be an opinion I would respecton the topic. Everyone else is just kind of flapping their gums.

Just another argument for death by explosion.

In many cases, the exercise of civil rights is zero-sum. For example, if someone wants to make a speech, then they impose their voice upon others. If someone wants to stage a protest march, then that space is not available to others. This is why many would say that those people should shut up and not make so much noise.

In contrast, my owning a gun takes nothing away from you. This is much more personal, so it's much dearer to our hearts. And it's property, so it's *real*! Everybody in America could own a gun, and that would be just fine.

grizgrin wrote:Gun control is a good example, in that some people favor more freedoms regarding them, and others favor taking them all away for reasons of safety.

And as far as the people here who are arguing that firing squad is the way to go, I'd like to hear form some of the folks in here who have actually pointed a firearm at someone and killed them.

If people were really serious about banning the first thing would be to ban TVs and cigarettes (heart disease and cancer are the top 2 killers in the US, with about half of all deaths).

"Accidents" are pretty far down after that, and if one were to break those down into things that can be taken away, the ranking of dangerous things would be like this:
1. Automobiles
2. Swimming Pools
3. Firearms

So the idea that firearms are something to be heavily-regulated is wierd to me, given the other things that kill way more people.

JohnHwangDD wrote:In many cases, the exercise of civil rights is zero-sum. For example, if someone wants to make a speech, then they impose their voice upon others. If someone wants to stage a protest march, then that space is not available to others. This is why many would say that those people should shut up and not make so much noise.

In contrast, my owning a gun takes nothing away from you. This is much more personal, so it's much dearer to our hearts. And it's property, so it's *real*! Everybody in America could own a gun, and that would be just fine.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. Got to love John Locke.

grizgrin wrote:JohnDD: Well, I dunno about happy with it. I hear different views on it from different brits I work with, and there are a LOT of them. Some are appreciative of the fact that the surviellance keeps people from just setting gak ablaze at random. Seems the whole yob culture over there, combined with a view on ASBO's by some youth as a badge of honor rather than a notice form authority and government that they are screwing up, is kinda outta control.

Some others are really hacked off by the fact that there is one camera "watching" in the country for every 14 people or so, if their own papers are correct.

Some think that more are needed, some think that less are needed.

Few are happy with the situation as it stands now.

Not too familiar with exactly how much representation John Q. get s in the passage of laws back in blighty. Not too sure how much say they have, nor what had ot be given in order to sacrifice so much freedom.

Certainly not trying to degrade the Brits or their laws and society, but that's just what's come up in my conversations with them. And this is phrased all PC for you guys, because NONE of them would have been NEARLY as nice sounding about it, regardless of their stance. They seem to be people who are pretty stubboorn, and pretty opinionated, and they are fairly blunt. Again, not bad things, but it can take some getting used to if you are not from their culture. It can take some REAL getting used to.

Oh, and John? Don't mind sebster. He just seems to enjoy trolling for Americans. He does it quite a bit. You never see him attacking anyone else, funny that.

I have to agree with pretty much everything here, and that's coming from a geniune Brit.

I'm one of the many who deplore the mass surveilance in this country, London, where I live, is the most watched city in the world, and there's just no legitimate reason for a lot of it. Our government is currently trying to impose mandatory ID cards on us, with a huge database of information on every citizen to go with it. This would allow the government to easily get data about an entire life, and I for one am so far against it it hurts.

The "yob culture" is a big issue in Britain, but mostly for people completley unnaffected by it, middle class housewives from small, backwater towns. The situation is massivley blown out of proportion in the media, and as such gives the government the ammunition it needs to impose draconian controls.

The problem we have in Britain is a complete apathy towards politics by so many people here, and the lack of a real protest culture like France, for instance. When tuition fees for university students were introduced, where were the riots?

As for being a stubborn bunch, guilty. I think that Brits might appear blunt to an outsider, but we're usually quite hard to offend, and sort of expect that of others, probably unfairly. The sense of humour is unique to Britain too, and I imagine all but indecipherable from abuse to someone unused to it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If people were really serious about banning the first thing would be to ban TVs and cigarettes (heart disease and cancer are the top 2 killers in the US, with about half of all deaths).

"Accidents" are pretty far down after that, and if one were to break those down into things that can be taken away, the ranking of dangerous things would be like this:
1. Automobiles
2. Swimming Pools
3. Firearms

So the idea that firearms are something to be heavily-regulated is wierd to me, given the other things that kill way more people.

I always find it amusing the role media and perception play in things like this. JohnHwangDD here is probably correct in saying that (in the US) more people die due to automobiles and simming pools than to guns. Hummm...lets do some data mining shall we...

USA, 2004 (a year I have numbers for both)
Firearm related fatalities (including murder, accident, suicide and more) = 29,569
Automotive deaths (including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, etc.) = 38,444
Deaths caused by lightning = 32

The funny thing is how much culture plays into it. Of those firearm related fatalities, just over 1/3 were homicide. So with 11000 murders the US ranks way way up there for violent crime. But are guns really the reason? I always like to compare the US to Switzerland on that issue. In the US, having guns is a right. In Switzerland, having a gun is a requirement (mostly). However, even when you adjust for population, Switzerland's murder rate is 1/5th of that in the US. So obviously there is something else going on here other than just a lot of people with guns. The question is, what is it?

I guess people just expect car death since we have a hard time living without them. They just become a necessary evil that ocasionaly kills us. And when it does, we put up flowers and little shrines at intersections where our loved ones die and move on with life. However when someone gets shot, everyone gets up in arms (pun intended). I suppose its because we don't "need" guns like we "need" cars or something like that.

One thing about the US is that it is far too big to talk about as one entity. I mean, Detroit (I think it's detroit- that's the place near the canadian border right?) might have a lot of gun deaths, or certain areas of LA, but then head out to Berkley or New Hampshire and there's a lot less.
Switzerland is much smaller, and though fairly culturally diverse in many ways, it is more socially homogenous.
Well, that's what I think anyway. But whenever you look at stats like that it's important to see the wider context rather than simply adjusting for population. Comparing the US and switzerland is not very easy to do because of this.
/geographical stats nerd.
That said, here in Ireland we haven't got many guns and we are ranked quite highly in terms of how free we are in our day to day lives. If Irish people don't like a law being enforced by the government (or the EU) we'll just ignore it en masse. This happened earlier in the year when they tried to introduce new legislation for drivers that would put a lot of people of the roads, and everyone said they would ignore it, the Gardaí said they wouldn't (couldn't) enforce it, and the government had to back down. We're cantankerous bollockses, even without guns.
We're also not under massive amounts of surveilence, have pretty free press, and a lot of political and economic freedom, while still being quite socialist.
(All of that said, Ireland is still a shithole in many respects, with massive tax rates, massive corruption, massive wastage on government projects and a pretty piss poor infastructure for a first world country)

This is a little bit off topic for the debate, but I often see the fallacy that because we don't have guns us Europeans are obviously under the yoke of our oppressive governments, and I wanted to make it clear that this is not always the case.

The brits are all crazy PC anyway, you're not even allowed to smack children over there

Yeah, the US averages 40,000 automobile fatalities and around 4,000 drownings annually. My numbers tend to have firearms fatalities floating around 1,000 per year.

I'm surprised that you have 30,000 firearms fatalities per year. That is a huge discrepancy, and I am wondering what your source is.

____

Oh yeah, we're not supposed to smack our children over here, either.

At least, not with anything that leaves marks that can be photographed and entered as evidence in a court of law.

So I'm now wondering if American and British parents ought to be using rubber hoses, or maybe waterboarding...

My dad used to boot me up the arse for anything from walking in the yard in my socks to back chat, and it never did me any harm.
Once I tried to fight him when he was drunk, and he punched me in the hip. That was pretty funny. The moral of the story is to never fight a guy who's been 20 years in the Garda Siochána. No guns = resolving all violent situations with sticks and fists = tough bastards.
But now I'm waaaaaaaay off topic.
(I often wonder if yob culture would be as prevailent if you instituted the good old kick in the arse method. But hey, most british folk I meet are lovely people, if a bit under educated in their history )

Polonius wrote:
What bugs me is, as Hordini pointed out, is the casual or even eager way people seem to advocate it. Crime or no crime, I think a state sanctioned termination should be treated solemnly. I also think that far too much of the support for the death penalty comes from the desire to have vengeance. What do you hear after every execution? "Well, now the victims family can have closure." I don't want to minimize the human need for vengeance, or denigrate the grief of the families, but the legal system does not exist for revenge.

I believe in the death penalty for a far more practical reason. As a taxpayer, the idea of putting someone in jail "for life" at a cost of $50k/year strikes me as absurd. The jails are overcrowded, and people are paroled well before they've actually "paid their debt" to society, and the prevalance of repeat offenders seems to show that not everyone is being rehabilitated.

So, I believe the death penalty should automatically apply in two cases:
1) You were sentenced to life in prison. Well, your life just got a lot shorter, and we saved a lot of money and reduced overcrowding the jails for everyone else.

2) You are convicted of anything after having already served one term in jail. Some people never learn, we should cut our losses and spend our time, energy, and money on those who aren't habitual offenders.

Greeby: You are the first brit i have met to call that on the yob issue in britain. I appreciate your perspective and opinion, as one who can only get his news on it 2nd hand at best. I must admit most of the sources I have are either a)sensationalist media or b) 50+ yr old white males (narrow demographic sample prob. cotriubtes to narrower range of opinions).
As far as the Brit sense of humor, I'm one of the few Americans I know who actually enjoys it. However, I have learned not to partake myself. But it's fun to listen to, til you get some wettin-his-panties-Nancy-boy with thin skin. Freakin merciless!

I'd have to wonder about Da Boss' child rearing methods and their uutility in addressing the situation. Sounds like he and I are fairly like-minded, albeit I have never had much reason to spank my kids at all. He and I may differ in degree. However, if John and Da Boss are really looking to dodge the bullet in court, then what they are looking for is a phone book for a major metropolitan area, or beating the bottoms of the feet because they don't bruise (Thank you, Charles).

Phoenix: in switzerland gun ownership is (almost) REQUIRED??? I am enthralled. Tell me more about my new favorite place on earth. This sounds better than Disney.

Legislating guns, cigarettes, TV's, and fast food: I don't think they should outlaw any of it, however I think there should be a ridiculous amount of testing done with requirements to make the data easily available on a 8th grade reading level. Clear, concise, complete. Caveat Emptor.

Topic: No, he's not too fat for a bullet. Applied at the right spot, he can't have THAT much fat on him.

Greebynog wrote:He's clearly a monster, I say don't give him the satisfaction of death. Leave him in solitary with *just* enough plain bread to survive for the rest of his life. Much worse.

You dont have to give him the satifaction, give it to me! i'll kill him for you!

JohnHwangDD wrote:In many cases, the exercise of civil rights is zero-sum. For example, if someone wants to make a speech, then they impose their voice upon others. If someone wants to stage a protest march, then that space is not available to others. This is why many would say that those people should shut up and not make so much noise.

In contrast, my owning a gun takes nothing away from you. This is much more personal, so it's much dearer to our hearts. And it's property, so it's *real*! Everybody in America could own a gun, and that would be just fine.

Except there is the counter right of public safety. The freedom to walk down the street without being threatened by the weapons of random nutters. If you want to disagree then you have to argue that everyone has the right to their own Abrams or tactical nuke… unless of course those need to be banned due to the right of the public to a certan level of safety.

It really becomes a case of which rights is greater in individual cases. When talking about the right of an individual to purchase her own howitzer personal safety likely triumps. When talking about the right of the individuals to purchase his own shotgun, the right of gun ownership likely triumphs. Somewhere in between there’s a debate to be had on each case.

But to dress up the argument for gun ownership as purely a matter of freedom with no reduction in any other freedom… it’s just plain wrong.

Redbeard wrote:I believe in the death penalty for a far more practical reason. As a taxpayer, the idea of putting someone in jail "for life" at a cost of $50k/year strikes me as absurd. The jails are overcrowded, and people are paroled well before they've actually "paid their debt" to society, and the prevalance of repeat offenders seems to show that not everyone is being rehabilitated.

So, I believe the death penalty should automatically apply in two cases:
1) You were sentenced to life in prison. Well, your life just got a lot shorter, and we saved a lot of money and reduced overcrowding the jails for everyone else.

2) You are convicted of anything after having already served one term in jail. Some people never learn, we should cut our losses and spend our time, energy, and money on those who aren't habitual offenders.

Hang on, what? A guy gets caught in a break and enter, does his time then a year after release gets caught stealing a purse… and you would kill him?

I mean, there’s hardline, then there’s draconian, then there’s psychotic.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, the US averages 40,000 automobile fatalities and around 4,000 drownings annually. My numbers tend to have firearms fatalities floating around 1,000 per year.

I'm surprised that you have 30,000 firearms fatalities per year. That is a huge discrepancy, and I am wondering what your source is.

There’s between 800 to 1,000 accidental gun deaths a year. A lot of pro-gun sites will use this figure as the only real gun deaths, arguing that homicide and suicide gun deaths would have occurred by other means anyway. To an extent they have a point, but they’re drawing a long bow in excluding all other deaths. And if they present the 1,000 odd deaths in isolation without pointing out they’ve excluded homicide/suicide deaths they’re being disingenuous, or have been misled by a source that was disingenuous.

Meanwhile, there is around 40,000 gun related deaths in the US each year, once you include homicides and suicides. Type US firearm fatalities into google, you’ll see the numbers repeated a few times on the first page. Note it’s impossible to tell how many of these would have occurred if no gun had been available, but it’s ludicrous to assume they all would have, just as its ludicrous to assume that none would have. It’s also impossible to tell if any proposed gun law would have stopped a person accessing a gun in each case, and it’s ludicrous to assume that all access would have been stopped, just as its ludicrous to assume none would would have.

But there is no doubting the US is an absolute outlier in gun deaths, especially amongst developed nations. I personally put it down more to culture and ineffectual enforcement of existing gun laws than a need for more extensive laws, but I’m by no means an expert.

Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that you were counting suicides and homicides.

In that case, do we adjust for DBC and automotive suicide?

If we do can we then bring Japan's suicide rates into play as theirs is monstrous and they have more gun control.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that you were counting suicides and homicides.

In that case, do we adjust for DBC and automotive suicide?

It's one of those things, as long as you spell out exactly what your number includes and excludes reasoning behind using it you're probably going okay. It's when people just throw out a figure like 1,000 or 40,000 without explaining what it includes and what it doesn't include that we get into trouble. It leads to people comparing swimming pool accidents to gun accidents while happily ignoring the number of firearm related homicides.

Suicides by firearm are generally included because there's a high correlation between gun ownership and suicide. I don't know how much has been done to examine the relationship though, as related factors like living in the country could explain much of the relationship (as people in the country are more likely to have a gun, and are more likely to kill themselves).

Woah, people in the country are more likely to kill themselves? Mind going into a bit more detail? What are the likely causes, besides a higher likelihood of having a gun?

How big is the difference between their chances and people who live in urban areas?

I would definitely agree that people in the country are more likely to have a gun though.

Hordini wrote:Woah, people in the country are more likely to kill themselves? Mind going into a bit more detail? What are the likely causes, besides a higher likelihood of having a gun?

How big is the difference between their chances and people who live in urban areas?

I would definitely agree that people in the country are more likely to have a gun though.

I don't have a source, I learnt about in a seminar from a guy from BeyondBlue, an Australian non-profit depression group. He was talking about Australia specifically but did seem to imply it's a worldwide thing.

I did a quick bit of googling and found plenty of sites that support the rural/urban divide, but solid numbers are hard to come by. I remember it being statistically significant, but not an order of magnitude or anything.

Um, guns don't cause suicide. If anything, suicidal tendencies spur gun purchases that are realized later.

There's a high correlation between the two because guns are merely an efficient tool for killing people. Whether you point it at yourself (suicide) or someone else (homicide), makes little difference.

In the suicide case, when someone gets past the show-off / grab attention stage of cutting across their wrists, it's simply a question of finding a the "right" method. Whether they choose DBC, single-vehicle fatality, jumping, poisoning, or firearm makes little difference - these are all very effective approaches. Having no guns means that they just choose another method. Aside from the amount of pain they suffer and the amount of cleanup they impose on others.

IMO, if one wanted to break the correlation between the guns and suicide, it might be enough to show some documentaries on *failed* suicides.

sebster wrote:
Hang on, what? A guy gets caught in a break and enter, does his time then a year after release gets caught stealing a purse… and you would kill him?

Yes. This hypothetical criminal obviously didn't learn from his time in jail. Within a year of release he's out terrorizing innocent people again. On what basis do you believe that this hypothetical person deserves to live in a civilized society? And, if we can't trust him to live among us, why should we pay $50k/year for the rest of his life to support his ass while he's in jail?

I mean, there’s hardline, then there’s draconian, then there’s psychotic.

It's not psychotic, it's practical. There are some people who simply cannot function according to societies rules. What do you do with them? Keep them locked up forever? Ship them to Austrailia? Is it really any worse to condemn someone to a quick death than it is to lock them in a 4"x8" cell for 30 years?

Hardcore Redbeard. Me likey.

But be magnanimous - the Three Strikes rule is pretty effective in this regard.

Ahtman wrote:If we do can we then bring Japan's suicide rates into play as theirs is monstrous and they have more gun control.

One can also argue that you should have a right to do with your life what you will, and if you choose to end it, then a firearm is generally regarded as one of the better methods, and people should have access to that.

Depends on the severity of the crime, I supose. Three strikes may be enough for someone stealing purses.

How would you like it to be your wife/girlfriend who was raped by someone after they got out of jail for similar offences twice before?

The right for innocent people not to be victims trumps the rights of criminals in all cases, in my opinion.